Tag Archives: public projects

Video of NYC Subway Tunnel Construction (Tue Tip)

Posted on by

subway

The Engineering News & Record has released a two-part video tour of the ongoing construction of a three-tunnel subway project totalling $15 bilion.  The subway expansion includes a $4.5 billion Second Avenue Subway, a $7.3 billion East Side access, and a $2.1 billion No. 7 line subway extension.

The clips, especially Part 2, are very interesting– check them out:

Tunnel Tour video clip Part 1 (run time 4:40)– Touring the first phase of the Second Avenue Subway extension

Tunnel Tour video clip Part 2 (run time 5:06)– Touring the East Side access, scheduled to be complete by September 2016

——————————–

Photo:  Alewife Red Line Subway Station by Freephoto.com via Creative Commons License.

Engineering Firms in the Cross-hairs

Posted on by

Two national engineering companies are in the cross-hairs of the Delaware Department of Transportation.

The Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) has filed suit against Florida-based Figg Bridge Engineers and its subcontractor, Atlanta-based Mactec Engineering, for alleged geotechnical engineering errors involved in a failed effort to build a new bridge over the Indian River Inlet in Sussex County, Delaware.   According to a Press Release issued by the State of Delaware, as embankment construction was nearing completion in early 2007, excessive settlement, bulging, tilting and other deformation of the embankment walls were observed. After investigation, DelDOT concluded that the embankments would pose continual and costly maintenance, as well as construction and safety risks and should be replaced with elevated roadway approaches to the new bridge. The Federal Highway Administration, which is providing a large portion of the funding for the replacement bridge, agreed with DelDOT’s conclusion to remove the embankments.

DelDot bridge

The lawsuit states that the deficiencies in the embankments are directly attributable to the failures and omissions of MACTEC, and that MACTEC, as sub-consultant to Figg, breached the standard of care that it owed to DelDOT. The facts in the complaint  “are based upon comprehensive studies prepared by the engineering firm of O’Connell & Lawrence, Inc. and the geotechnical consulting firm of Golder Associates, Inc., as well as observations of experts made during deconstruction of the embankments. ”  The lawsuit specifically alleges that:

  • MACTEC did not adequately analyze monitoring data and thus did not recognize that the intended embankment stability had dropped below minimally acceptable levels during and upon completion of construction; 
  • The embankments settled and deformed substantially more than MACTEC had advised DelDOT would be the case. This is because MACTEC miscalculated the nature and extent of settlement in the soft clay under the embankments, and did not take into account other types of settlement.
  • MACTEC miscalculated the time intervals over which settlement would occur.
  • MACTEC failed to specify a process for monitoring data or implementing necessary action if required by field conditions.

DelDot is seeking over $19.6 million in damages from Figg and Mactec.

In a vigorous detailed response, Mactec has stated, among other things, that:

  • In November 2005, despite the fact that the original bridge design was canceled, DelDOT authorized spending millions of dollars to construct embankments for the original bridge. DelDOT knew and understood that the original bridge would never be built and that any other bridge design would require that changes be made to the embankments which would likely include the removal of large sections.
  •  In October 2007, DelDOT prepared a Proposed Path Forward. When this document was reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration, they labeled it as “full of scare tactics and misdirection to avoid doing the proper engineering.” Rather than performing the engineering requested by the federal government’s primary technical agency for bridge design and construction, DelDOT forged ahead on its predetermined path without involving the design team.
  • In January 2008, DelDOT hired outside counsel and two consulting claims firms to assist in the investigation at an estimated cost of $2.1 million. Neither consulting firm was asked to review/recommend methods to address technical issues of concern. Both firms have acknowledged they cannot support the report of the ‘independent’ geotechnical firm upon which the DelDOT Proposed Path Forward was based, that they had not considered the bases of DelDOT’s decision, and that they did not investigate the installation of certain critical aspects of the embankments by the contractor.
  • In April 2008, geotechnical monitoring data showed that the embankments had reached the required settlement and the original bridge design plan could have been constructed without removal of the constructed embankments. The predictions on the amount and length of time for settlement by the “independent” geotechnical firm were clearly overstated.
  • In May 2008, DelDOT, again, authorized spending millions of dollars to deconstruct the embankments. DelDOT claims the decision to be based on the engineering report from the “independent” geotechnical firm. Factually, however, this expenditure was the direct result of DelDOT’s 2005 decision to proceed with building embankments for a bridge design that was never intended to be built. DelDOT had to accommodate the new bridge design by removing significant amounts of the embankment on both sides regardless of the accuracy of any predictions made by anyone as to settlement.

It will be interesting to see how the case enfolds.  Stay  tuned!

——————

 Photo (c) DelDot

<!–03bbccc94bff4df6b273c115904d7f02–>

Learn about State Construction issues at upcoming conference (Tue Tip)

Posted on by

Registration is now open for the 30th annual State Construction Conference.  For those who are unfamiliar with the conference, the conference brings together state agencies and institutions with architects, landscape architects, engineers, contractors, and subcontractors to discuss issues relating to the planning, design, and construction of state projects.

Topics for the 30th conference will include:

  • Double payment of contractors
  • NC Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors – case studies and policies
  • HUB overview
  • Pre-qualification of single prime contractors
  • Geothermal (pros and cons)
  • Special inspections
  • Life cycle cost analysis

NCSUimageOPD

 

 Conference Details:

When:  March 24, 2011

Where:  McKimmon Conference & Training Center, NC State University, Raleigh, NC

Credits:  Architects, engineers, and attorneys will earn 7 credit hours (pending approval by Boards).

Reception:  There will be also be a networking reception and expo sponsored by the Office for Historically Underutilized Businesses following the conference sessions.

To register:  click here  (Pre-registration is required, and cut-off is March 11th).

 Planning on attending?  Let me know and we may be able to meet up for coffee.

 ———–

Photo: (c) Office for Professional Development, NCSU

 

 

State Construction Project Terms (Guest Post)

Posted on by

 

Eileen Youens

Eileen Youens

Today’s Guest Post is from Eileen R. Youens.  Eileen is  Assistant Professor of Public Law and Government at the UNC School of Government, where her areas of interest include public contract law, including purchase contracts, construction contracts, conflicts of interest, and disposal of property.

 The ABCs of IFBs, ITBs, RFPs, RFOs, and RFIs

What’s the difference between an IFB, and RFP, and an RFQ, and what are they anyway?  As I’ll explain in more detail in this post, what name you give a solicitation document—the document you use to solicit bids or proposals—is not as important as the process you use to award the contract.  And the North Carolina General Statutes usually dictate which process you’re required to use.

The Four Types of Documents

There are four main types of solicitation documents: (1) those used for bidding, where price is the primary factor; (2) those used to request proposals focusing on factors other than price; (3) those used to ask for someone’s qualifications; and (4) those used to gather information from potential bidders or proposers before starting the bid or proposal process.  I’ll explain below when local governments can use each of these four types of documents.

The First Type: Bids

Under North Carolina law, local governments are required to bid out purchases of “apparatus, supplies, materials, and equipment” (what I like to refer to as “stuff”) costing $30,000 or more, and contracts for construction or repair costing $30,000 or more.  (Local policies may require bidding on other types of contracts or for contracts costing less than $30,000.)  The bidding statutes, G.S. 143-129 (formal bidding) and G.S. 143-131 (informal bidding), require that these contracts be awarded to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder.  This “award standard” is what distinguishes bidding from other contracting methods.  To solicit bids, public entities usually use Invitations to Bid (ITBs) or Invitations for Bids (IFBs). For informal bids or for purchases or construction costing less than $30,000, local governments may also use a request for quotes (“RFQ” – not to be confused with another RFQ: the request for qualifications, discussed below).

The Second Type: Requests for Proposals

North Carolina local governments have the option of using a request for proposal process for the purchase of information technology goods and services (G.S. 143-129.8).  This process allows local governments to establish their own evaluation criteria (i.e., evaluating vendors based on how well their product meets your entity’s needs, rather than focusing primarily on price), and award the contract to the vendor “that submits the best overall proposal.”  I say that this is an option because if you’re purchasing IT “stuff” that costs $30,000 or more, you can either (1) bid it out (formally or informally, depending on the cost), or (2) use the request for proposal process described in G.S. 143-129.8.  On the other hand, if you’re contracting for IT services, those services don’t fall under the bidding laws, so you can either (1) use the request for proposal process described in G.S. 143-129.8, or (2) use any process you want to use, or no process at all (simply selecting the firm you’d like to work with), unless your local policy requires a specific process for the procurement of services.  Note that if you’re using grant funding, you must comply with the terms of the grant.  (For example, if the grant requires you to bid out IT goods instead of using a request for proposal process, then you have to comply with the grant.)

The North Carolina statutes refer to requests for proposals in two other situations.  First, G.S. 143-64.17A requires that all public entities in North Carolina use a request for proposal process for the procurement of guaranteed energy savings contracts (GESCs).  The statutes governing GESCs (G.S. 143-64.17 through G.S. 143-64.17K [scroll down to “Part 2. Guaranteed Energy Savings Contracts for Governmental Units”]) set out a specific request-for-proposal process and specific evaluation criteria that must be used for these types of contracts.  Second, the statutes allow North Carolina local governments to use a request for proposal process for contracts for the construction, design, operation, and maintenance of solid waste management facilities and sludge management facilities.  The statute governing these contracts is G.S. 143-129.2.

As I mentioned above, local governments are not required to bid out services (aside from design services—discussed below).  In fact, the General Assembly has decided to let local governments choose how to procure services.  Many local governments use requests for proposals to procure services, as a way of seeking competition while considering factors in addition to price.  When a local government uses a request for proposals to procure services, the local government decides how the proposals are evaluated, what the timeline is, whether to advertise or not, and whether to open proposals in public or not.  In other words, when procuring services, it’s up to each government to decide what process will best balance its needs for (1) good quality services, (2) value, (3) transparency, (4) efficiency, and (5) fairness.  (As I mentioned above, if you’re using grant funding, you’ll need to comply with the terms of the grant; if the grant requires a competitive process for awarding contracts for services, you’ll have to comply with those terms.)

So the term “request for proposals” (RFP) covers a range of solicitation documents.

The Third Type: Qualifications-Based Selection

G.S. 143-64.31 (sometimes referred to as the “Mini-Brooks Act” because it’s based on a federal law called the “Brooks Act”) requires local governments to procure architectural, engineering, surveying, or construction-management-at-risk services—regardless of the contract amount—by focusing on qualifications rather than price.  (Note that local governments can exempt themselves from this process.) So when people solicit these services, they often use a “request for qualifications” (RFQ).

You can also use qualifications-based solicitation (or some variation thereof) for other types of services.  Again, since the general statutes don’t require the use of a specific process (or any process) for procuring services, the process you use is up to you (as long as you comply with your local policies or grant terms, if you’re using grant funding).

The Fourth Type: Information Requests

Another acronym you may see is RFI—a “request for information.”  RFIs are not used to procure goods or services directly, but instead are used to solicit information about purchases or projects you’re planning to procure in the future.  For example, if you know you’re going to have to buy some new police cars next year, and it’s been a while since you’ve bid out police cars, you could send out RFIs to several car dealers or manufacturers to find out what new features are available and what models might best meet your needs.

The Bottom Line

William Shakespeare really said it best:

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet.”

In other words, the substance of the document is more important than what it’s called.  If you’re soliciting firms to perform architectural services, your solicitation document must ask for qualifications instead of price, even if you call it an IFB.  And if you’re bidding out a $1.2 million construction project, you have to award the contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, even if you call your solicitation document a rose an RFP.

Eileen and I welcome your thoughts and questions in the comments section, below.

[hat tip to Mike Purdy, of Mike Purdy’s Public Contracting Blog, for bringing Eileen’s post to my attention]

Greening the Cities- free webinar

Posted on by

Interested in how to “Green” our Cities?  Attend a free web seminar to learn from top experts.  Entitled “Retrofitting Cities: How to “Green” the Cities We’ve Got”, the live webinar will be held this Monday, November 22nd at 1pm ET.  (Event free but registration required).

The webinar is hosted by the Sustainable Cities Collective, and it is presenting the discussion “to explore the ideas that could make retrofitting the low-hanging fruit of urban re-engineering,” including:

  • Transit networks and mobility hubs
  • Improving energy use in buildings
  • Bike infrastructure, bike-sharing, and more
  • Efficient electric grids
  • Small-scale solar power and other alternative energy sources
  • Funding: Where will the money come from? Can solutions like public-private partnerships help fill the gap?

(hat tip to Chris Cheatham, Green Building Law Update blogger and seminar speaker, who alerted me to the webinar)